Piltdown Superman

Japan Bears Disgrace by Ushikawa Man

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Throughout history, many cultures had concepts of honor, including the Vikings, the Arabs, Mediterranean societies, and others. Sources of honor differ. People often hear about Japanese honor and the importance of saving face (individual and community). Scan videos and see that there are many ways that Westerners can offend Japanese people.

When individual or cultural pride is injured, it is difficult to regain the honor. During World War II, Japanese thought they were the most highly evolved race — a concept that fell after the war. Ushikawa Man was a source of pride which turned to shame.

Brown bear resting in Romanian forest, Pexels / Ferencz Istvan

Japanese paleontologists found an evolutionary ancestor in their territory, though some were not so enthusiastic. It supposedly lived 129–774 thousand years ago, which is quite a range. The time was whittled down. Some evolutionists were not content to rest on their laurels and re-examined the bones. The disgrace comes from bad previous research, as the bones were that of a brown bear. Again, a great deal of effort to deny the truth of creation is shown to be folly.

Between 1957 and 1959 two fossilized limb bone parts were uncovered in Japan.1 Scientists thought the bones were human—a portion of humerus (upper arm bone) and the head of a femur (thigh bone). So they were dubbed ‘Ushikawa Man’ because they were found at the Ushikawa (牛川 = ‘Ox River’) district in Toyohashi city, Aichi Prefecture, central Japan.

To read the rest, visit "Ushikawa Man — The man who never was."

Doubting Hezekiah

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 14:12:43 +0000

In the past, the Bible was respected by both believers and, to some extent, by unbelievers. Over the years that respect has dwindled; many people presuppose that the Bible is full of myths. Bible believers have an uphill climb for credibility dealing with folks who have not read it.

People who utilize critical thinking can readily see the differences. Bible history has specific people, places, and times. Mythology has none of that. Liberal Christians as well as atheists take a "prove it" approach, saying that certain biblical accounts have not been verified by archaeology.

King Hezekiah Destroys the Idols, Matthaeus Merian the Elder, 1625-30 (PD, modified)

Numerous archaeologists in the 20th century have gone on record saying that their studies have never contravened claims in the Bible. More recent archaeologists disagree, using the logical fallacy of argument from silence (or "prove it"), essentially stating that if they can't verify something, it didn't happen. Ridiculous.

One example is the Hittites. It was said that since there was no evidence found, they didn't exist. Then the evidence was found. Below, we see doubt about King Hezekiah, who was discussed in two books of the Old Testament. Many of the kings of Judah were sidewinders, promoting idolatry and immorality as well as being oppressive in general. Hezekiah was a good king who instituted reforms. Verified. Again, doubters have to consume their fetid words.

In 2 Kings 18:1–3, 22 and 2 Chronicles 31:1, we read about the religious reforms of Hezekiah (from the writers of those books and even the hostile witnesses from Assyria), who is described as doing “what was good and right and faithful before the Lord his God. And every work that he undertook in the service of the house of God and in accordance with the law and the commandments, seeking his God, he did with all his heart, and prospered” (2 Chronicles 31:20–21 ESV). Second Kings 18:5–6 (ESV) describes Hezekiah in this way: “He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord. He did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses.” Second Chronicles 33:1–4 also confirms this by mentioning that his son, Manasseh, reinstated idolatry in the land by rebuilding the high places that his father had destroyed and erecting altars to Baal and Asheroth.

You can read the whole thing at "Does Archaeology Show King Hezekiah's Destruction of Idolatry?" Dig this, you should also check out "Hezekiah and the Tunnel to Siloam."

When AI Turns Deadly

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 17 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Until there is compelling evidence otherwise, I believe artificial intelligence is a useful tool — but it has to be used properly. AI is not just for computer programmers, it is available to many people. Moments ago, AI helped me reject a "highly dangerous phishing tactic".

There are video channels where owners are deceitful. There are videos of concerts that never happened. Fine, but when we are told a concert is real, or that AI characters sign autographs...stop lying. Aside from entertainment, developers are claiming that essentially, AI can be your trusted companion.

Artificial Intelligence, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann (geralt)

Remember, AI models are essentially computer programs, and they are subject to the biases of their programmers.

Artificial intelligence has been documented to include false information and spurious references in scientific material. The cute way to describe this is hallucinating (implying a real mind behind the words exists). Okay, let's say what that "mind" is doing: lying. (In fact, I was essentially called a liar by an AI search engine one time.) It can even get into psychotic territory, and I have not only corrected it, but it has corrected its own previous answers.

Some folks think that the creation of artificial intelligence by man can give us a way to do away with our Creator; AI can be our salvation. That is galactically stupid.

The most disturbing AI-related “Stop the world I want to get off!” type of story I’ve come across so far was in the Wall Street Journal [late August 2025]. A 56-year-old man, living with his mother in a wealthy New York suburb, developed a “friendship” with ChatGPT, imagining the bot as if it possessed a spirit and consciousness in the form of a disembodied companion whom the man called “Bobby Zenith.”

The chatbot encouraged these delusions, which got progressively worse as the man apparently enabled the “memory” feature and the electronic companion immersed itself fully in a case of galloping mental illness, including fears that his mother was plotting against him. The result was a murder-suicide, whose details and methods the Journal discreetly withholds, which is probably for the best:

You can read the rest at "In Connecticut, Horrors of AI Finally Come into View." A short related article followed, "An Intelligent Design Addendum to AI Horror in Connecticut." By the way, when discussing the phishing attempt that was directed at me with an AI search engine, it told me that I was doing the right thing and being encouraging. Like a person might.

Joshua Trees from a Genesis Flood Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

If you mount up and ride down to the Southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico, you will encounter a certain type of yucca plant called the Joshua tree. Like the fan palm in California is called a tree because of its appearance, neither is botanically a tree but there are similarities.

Yucca plants are fond of deserts. Joshua Tree National Park is special because it borders two desert ecosystems. It is interesting that arid conditions exist so close to oceans in certain places, but that is because of how mountains affect rainfall.

Sunset at Joshua Tree National Park, Unsplash / Cedric Letsch

There is a critter called the yucca moth that has a very specific symbiotic relationship with Joshua Trees and other yucca plants. They get food and shelter, and are the only source of pollination. That is a challenge to evolutionary scientists, and biblical creationists have some ideas about it. Also, a Genesis Flood model can describe the formation of the deserts and the changes in climate from pre-Flood days.

Deserts are often viewed as barren wastelands, yet they boast some of the most captivating organisms on Earth. You have to be unusual to live in a desert, and the Joshua trees of Joshua Tree National Park are no exception. Resembling Dr. Seuss’s truffula trees, these distinct plants raise intriguing questions about how desert ecosystems developed and were colonized in the post-Flood world.

Of the 12 U.S. national parks in desert regions, Joshua Tree is unique because it straddles the boundary between two major ecosystems: the higher elevation Mojave Desert and the lower elevation Sonoran Desert. Located about 130 miles east of Los Angeles, this almost 800,000-acre wilderness was designated as a national monument in 1936 and a national park in 1994 to protect its rich biological communities.

To read the rest, see "The Land of Truffula Trees."

Selling False Pterosaur Flight Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 14:26:57 +0000

Sales representatives typically believe in the products they are trying to sell, often deleting their integrity to sell something faulty. Descent-with-modification evolution is presented as slow, gradual, and happening over huge amounts of time. The fossil record constantly interferes with the evolution story.

After all, there should be innumerable fossils showing how one creature is turning into another, or how they are developing notable traits. Fossils consistently show critters fully formed and ready to go. This happened in Charlie Darwin's time, but he and other believed by faith despite lack of evidence.

Pterosaur flying in mountains, Flickr / theilr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Not only are there no convincing fossils showing the origin of dinosaurs, pterosaurs also appeared just as mysteriously. Indeed, advanced CT imaging "brain scans" of fossils reveal they were ready to fly. (An inconvenient truth is that pterosaurs and Archaeopteryx flew at the same time.) Even though the evidence supports recent creation, Darwinian sales reps insist on pushing their faulty worldview.

. . . This new study was led by evolutionary biologist Mario Bronzati et. al., at Johns Hopkins Medicine. The Bronzati et. al., paper, which I review below, assumed the evidence for evolution was valid. Evolution proposes a gradual transition from terrestrial travel to flight.

The data the researchers uncovered, however, is actually more consistent with creation. The authors never consider that possibility. Although the authors interpret their findings through an evolutionary lens, the evidence aligns much better with intentional design than with evolution. Yet Professor Bronzati, in contrast to orthodox evolution, does admit that the evidence showed the pterosaurs evolved “very rapidly.”

To examine the rest of the product, visit "Pterosaurs Could Fly from Creation." Related: "Pterosaurs Fly "In a Flash'."

Pollen, Forensics, and Design

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

During their routines, bees get pollen. That gives protein to the hive, which makes honey, which I add to the peanut butter on my toast. At certain times, a great deal of pollen gets into the air and makes people sneeze. Pollen is durable stuff and protected by sporopollenin, a tough outer shell.

Palynology is the study of pollen and its applications. It is used in forensics and archaeology. When some Viking skeletons were discovered, pollen was examined. Think of old detective shows solving crimes with a little evidence, but now, pollen can give important clues to detectives.

Bee on flower with pollen, Pixabay / Myriams Photos

The Master Engineer designed pollen to do its job of reproduction. He also gave it that shell that could protect it for many years. If researchers want to examine it, better hurry up because it can blow away if it is not covered or buried. Ötzi the Iceman was a freeze-dried body discovered in the alps. Pollen in his stomach gave clues to this really cold case.

Tucked inside a single grain of pollen, a speck so small that thousands could rest on the head of a pushpin, is a story that begins with the wisdom of a Creator and ends in modern crime labs solving cases. Forensic palynology, the study of pollen and spores as trace evidence, is one of the most fascinating intersections of botany, criminal justice, and biblical design. When we look closely at the durability, structure, and purpose of pollen, we are not just examining one of the mechanisms for plant reproduction, but we are seeing the fingerprints of a Creator who planned ahead for the survival of His creation.

You can finish reading this article by heading over to "What Forensic Pollen Evidence Reveals About God’s Design."

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Not Preserved by Iron

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Call the scientists wrong, impugn the researchers, say that creationists are lying — but the fact remains that soft tissues from dinosaurs exist. Their bones have yielded DNA. The Darwin Ranch up yonder by Deception Pass keeps firing up the excuse mill to little avail.

Sure, many evolutionists cling to those excuses because if dinosaurs could not have lived millions of years ago, it would be only thousands. That would not give Charlie time to work his magic. A rescuing device involving iron proposed by Dr. Mary Schweitzer was analyzed.

Brachylophosaurus canadensis made of iron, Bing AI Image Generator

Dr. Schweitzer figured that since iron is a major component of blood, Fenton reactions could occur that would slow down chemical decay. It seemed plausible on the surface. Many evolutionists enthusiastically grasped at that straw. The idea was actually put to the test. It did not go well for secularists, but helped support the young-age biblical creationists position.

Scientists like Mary Schweitzer have upset the evolutionary world for three decades with discoveries of dinosaur soft tissue, protein, and even DNA.1 None of these should be there if dinosaurs had died out 66 million years ago. At first, the evolutionary establishment denied her discoveries, but she refuted her critics.

The rest of the article is found at "Iron fails to preserve collagen." You may also be interested in "A Toast to Dinosaur Soft Tissue Rescuing Devices."

Fake Medical Advice from Two Sources

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

The other day, I wrote an article about the use of Artificial Intelligence in modern Viking music. There are historical inaccuracies, but admittedly, some is layered and quite good — when people do more than type a prompt and let AI do everything. Authors and AI have noticeable failings.

People are polarized about the use of AI. Some act like it is a secular savior of the world, others detest dealing with chatbots. A big problem is that AI can hallucinate and make up its own "facts," and even be deceived, then give medical advice.

Social media, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann (geralt)

Another online way of getting medical advice is through influencers, those folks who have reputations on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, and other social(ist) media sites. If you use the mind that God gave you and think, consider that short videos cannot give sufficient information. You may have conditions that make taking that herbal supplement they recommend a disaster. Some say a food is bad because it contains cellulose, which is in wood, so evil companies use it as filler. Guess what, buttercup? If you ate anything from plants, you consumed cellulose — it's integral to plant cell walls.

Let this cowboy influence you. First, think and maintain healthy skepticism. Second, so some research. Third, medical things should be run by medical professionals before ingesting something. You savvy those, pilgrim?

Consider the high risks of making a chatbot — or an influencer — your doctor. At American Council on Science and Health, Mauro Proença warns against relying on such sources for medical advice. The story he reports is certainly sobering: A research team decided to set up popular chatbots with deliberately false information:

To read the rest of this very interesting short article, visit "Beware of These Two Sources of Bad Medical Advice."

Center of Gravity Ruins Dinosaur Flying

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Purveyors of the dinosaur-to-bird evoporn trip over facts, ignore serious problems, and pretend that evolutionists are all in agreement on the subject. There have been several attempts to present fossilized material as feathers or protofeathers, but there is no actual evidence for it.

Indeed, the evolution of the feather itself would be a secular miracle. There are also numerous major changes necessary (with no transitional forms in the fossil record) for dino-to-bird evolution. A hypothetical winged dinosaur cannot fly because of the center of gravity problem.

Awkward feathered T. rex with wings © Cowboy Bob Sorensen, made with MS Copilot

Flying critters were designed to have the correct center of gravity so they can have control. While it may not exactly be biomimetics, it is clear that human flight drew inspiration from what is seen in creation. Evolutionists seem to think that if a dinosaur had feathers, it was on the way to becoming a bird. Not hardly!

Have you ever flown on an airplane where the flight crew repositioned people and cargo closer to the front? You may or may not have already understood the reason, but this is to ensure that the center of gravity (CoG) of the plane is within appropriate limits, or else the plane can enter an unstable upward pitch.

The airplane would still possess basic features and controls for flight, such as engines for thrust, wings for lift, elevators, ailerons, and so forth. However, if the CoG is too far aft of the aircraft’s “stick-fixed neutral point,”1 then those features and controls are not enough: The plane’s flight can become very unstable, possibly even leading to catastrophic loss. Aircrew and aeronautical engineers are aware of the critical importance of CoG location to keep an airplane properly balanced.

To read the rest, head on over to "Can a Hypothetical Dino with Wings Fly?"

The Foolishness of Cosmic Darwinism

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Some folks get all het up when creationists talk about the Big Bang, telling us that it has nothing to do with evolution. Two distinct possibilities are that they are uninformed or simply dishonest. Cosmic evolution is the secular origin of the universe myth. You savvy that, pilgrim?

There was nothing, which exploded. Eventually there were stars and galaxies, elements formed, our solar system, geologic evolution, and then gas-to-geneticist evolution. Biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents point to the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of a Creator.

The Passion of Creation with JWST image from NASA (who does not endorse this site), both modified

Secularists tacitly affirm Romans 1:18-24, which says that people know evidence for God which is clear in his creation, but they suppress that truth. It is obvious that Earth was designed for life in many ways such as having a well-behaved sun, our placement in the galaxy, Earth's orbit itself, ATP synthase, and much more. Some folks take their denial of the truth to extremes, including how fine tuning is explained away by incorporating Charlie Darwin's ideas into cosmic evolution. It does not go well.

In a recent article at IAI News, technological physicist Jeff Shainline proposes a preposterous new theory that attempts to “resolve” anthropic fine-tuning by rolling it together with cosmological Darwinism and a twist of The Privileged Planet gone universal. Shainline piggybacks his extended theory on an earlier stretch-of-the-imagination proposal by cosmologist Lee Smolin,

To read about how galactically foolish these notions are, read the rest at "Fine-Tuning — for the Universe or for Life? A Physicist Exercises His Imagination."

Evolutionists Still Ambivalent on the Handyman

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

For over sixty years, an image titled "The March of Progress" has been fake news about evolution. Forms of it are still used today, often in parody. It fits Charles Darwin's Victorian-era fantasy where a white man is the pinnacle of evolution. Knowledgeable evolutionists dislike it.

Darwinists have evosplained in one way or another is that scientists are agreed about evolution but not about some of the details. How about the handyman? Homo habilis is the handyman because he supposedly made tools. But he is not just a mere detail to quibble over.

H. habilis was first proposed in the 1960s but has always been controversial. Even so, it has been popularized and treated like a definitive link in the human evolution story despite opposition among evolutionists.

This wastebasket or junk taxon is a collection of odds and ends that had to be sorted through to manufacture the handyman. Tools were supposedly found near the bones. (Indeed, some alleged tools are not necessarily made by humans!) Even so, he is called an archaic human, which drops the evolutionary link idea. In reality, he was a descendant of the first created humans.

For decades, Homo habilis has been widely presented as one of the earliest members of the genus Homo. However, ongoing analyses continue to raise significant questions about its classification and even whether the fossils attributed to it represent a single species.

This highlights an important point: many past statements presented as settled conclusions were evidently overstated and based on limited and fragmentary evidence. These claims are now being reexamined. For example, sources such as Wikipedia still describe Homo habilis as “one of the oldest species of archaic humans,” even though its exact place in human origins remains debated.

To read the rest, click on "Is Homo Habilis understood yet?"

When a Creationist Student is Assigned Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Christian students in secular school systems are swimming upstream, and many succumb to the propaganda and lose their faith. Others have learned what and why they believe. Ideally, parents use available resources, and kids are taught evolution the right way.

In addition to using critical thinking and seeing how children are indoctrinated into a secularist religion, Christian parents and children utilize good biblical creation science material to bolster knowledge. Expect it to happen that a student is assigned to write a paper on evolution. Then what?

School crossing sign, Morguefile / thesuccess

Creation scientists who have obtained degrees are divided about whether or not creationist students should keep their heads down about their beliefs. Some have said they had no trouble in higher education, others emphasize caution. When writing a paper about evolution, it is best to keep creation views and mentions of God out of it. This is not compromise, but rather, strategic. Logic and information that questions evolution can be used, and it may plant seeds of doubt in the minds of instructors. Indeed, it may be possible that some of those facilitators are creationists working undercover.

So you’re studying at a secular institution and have received an assignment asking you to explain some evolutionary concepts. What should you do? Should you refuse to do it? Should you argue the case for creation and try to prove that evolution does not work? What happens if you can’t find any creationist information on the topic?

Don’t panic. All you need is to understand the thinking of secular science, how to research the topic, and how to write the assignment. Once you know these things you can write an assignment without compromising your creationist views. And your assignment will be one which can advance the creationist cause, as well as being a quality piece of writing that will receive a good grade.

To read the rest of this helpful article, visit "‘How do I do my assignment about evolution?’"

The Problems of Students and AI

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sun, 20 Sep 2026 15:44:17 +0000

As discussed previously, we often use artificial intelligence without even knowing it. The debate rages on about AI being a good, bad, a neutral tool to be used properly, or something else. A chatbot interacts with user input and can provide conversations.

Many search engines incorporate AI features and resemble chatbots in how they answer a search query or basic question, then continue in a conversational way if a user requests it. I asked about Viking shield-maidens and received several supporting links, such as this one.

AI-generated infant with robot, Pixabay / AiCanvas

A fun illustration before I continue with why AI can be a problem for students. A spell back, I saw an AI-generated Viking song that was rather well done, and I took a screenshot of the warrior woman from this clip where she is looking somber. (Another version gives her a lovely smile.) The AI screenshot was cluttered with captions, so I had another AI take them out. I put the picture in a frame at PhotoFunia. Then I posted it on social(ist) media and said she's my new girlfriend. Someone commented that we'll be artificially happy together.

Get a glimmer of this problem? While I had some skills, I learned some more and it took about twenty minutes to get the final product. This was in a greater cloud of rabbit trails about my Scandinavian ancestry; mayhaps this cowboy has some Viking DNA? Free AI is convenient and easy to use, and people can get impulses to ask things that are...truly bizarre...as well as idle curiosity and unnecessary things.

Youngsters are easily distracted, and AI offers lots of squirrels to chase; it can be difficult for adults to stay on task at times, what about students? Schools are banning or limiting AI and computer access. One reason is (to be blunt) that they are dumbing kids down. Instead of learning and developing problem-solving skills, let the computer do it.

Years ago, I heard one co-worker comment about another one that "He spends more time avoiding work than if he had just done the job in the first place." This brings to mind how nefarious students find ways of stealing answers to examination questions — the time and effort would be better used in studying. AI is a great way to cheat, as it can be used to pass scientific peer-review.

Watch out for what is called hallucinations. AI can use the secular scientific process of Making Things Up™ and also cite nonexistent references. Indeed, I was effectively called a liar. Another time, I asked for weather conditions from the previous week and it said the date I wanted had not happened yet! Guess I'm a time traveler.

Despite quirks and flaws, artificial intelligence can be a useful tool. Parents should discuss it with their kids and show them how they can verify things as well as develop their own mental skills. Sometimes AI will be flat-out wrong, other times one search-engine AI response will contradict another. Our Creator gave us intelligently-designed minds and expects us to use them.

As students, teachers, and schools begin another academic year, one technology that is guaranteed to be at the center of the educational pursuit, like it or not, is artificial intelligence. Since 2022, widespread use of generative AI and chatbots has upended the educational landscape and dramatically altered how learning is approached and achieved.

It would be in your best interest to read the rest of this interesting article at "How Much Should Students Use AI? Preferably Not at All." You may also like "Properly Using Artificial Intelligence."

Polar Bears not Declining, but Thriving

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Just the other day, Ruby Slippers asked me if I had heard anything from Stormie Waters Meadows and Roland Meadows after their recent nuptials. We discussed the brief letters each of us had received. For some reason, the conversation wandered to polar bears.

Ruby told me that way back when, Vikings sometimes caught, transported, and gifted them. Quite a task, and the recipient would have to feed and house them. She also informed me that they can swim for mighty long distances.

Polar bear ready to be a polo bear, made with Bing AI Image Generator

Folks get all a-twitter about global warming, and they think that sea life around the Arctic will suffer. Scientists say (oh, boy, here we go) that the number of polar bears is declining and they will go extinct. As climate change alarmists are wont to do, they downplay or even leave out important facts. F'rinstance, the numbers of polar bears are variable. Also, they are currently increasing. Then there's the recent study of the genome and their adaptability — which is right in keeping with what the Creator designed.

Every form of cellular life was created with specific traits and behaviors that enable it to thrive on our planet. For example, as global weather patterns affect climates across tropical, temperate, and polar regions, animals self-adjust in remarkable ways. Their wondrous capabilities are more than instinctive—they are engineered for adaptive flexibility across challenging environments.

Y'all can read the rest of the article by chilling at "Polar Bears Thrive across the Arctic by Adaptive Flexibility."

Origin of Life Stories Continually Convoluted

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Darwin's disciples often insist that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, the two are separate concepts. So, abiogenesis — life from non-life, also called chemical evolution — has nothing to do with dust-to-Doctor-Doom evolution. Actually, they want creationists to give them a boost over that hurdle.

Meanwhile, there is a great deal of research happening on the origin of life. Much of the research involves torturing the evidence until it "supports" the latest narrative of evolutionists. Dr. James Tour, an Intelligent Design supporter, says they are clueless about the origin of life.

The tales told are convoluted because one thing leads to another. Secularists have to go back to their creation myths and a molten Earth, then stumble forward through time. If evidence could speak, it might say, "Yes, but..." numerous times. Facts interrupt the stories, and more stories are developed, the OoL history keeps getting rewritten in the name of science. The truth is, the science does not hold up but the evidence for recent creation certainly does.

Our planet earth, as the conventional evolutionary story goes, formed from coalescing hot material that flung out from the solar nebula some 4.57 billion years ago.1 Initially, the surface covering this coalesced material was a global hot magma ocean. Eventually, the surface supposedly became a newly formed, barren wasteland of sharp rocks, strewn with lava flows from erupting volcanoes. The air was fuming with unbreathable gases. There was little or no liquid water. Just as things were starting to settle down, a barrage of meteorites tens of kilometers across came pummeling down from space, obliterating entire landscapes and sending vast plumes of debris high into the sky.

To read the rest, see "The Shifting Sand of Life’s Origin Story."

Secularists Admit Materialism Hinders Science

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 15:10:33 +0000

As mentioned previously, scientists have claimed to follow where the evidence leads — as if evidence was a person. (Even so, we know what they mean.) However, many are unwilling to reach certain conclusions based on evidence because they dislike them.

Dr. Richard Lewontin admitted that he believes in evolution despite the evidence. Others have done the same. Once again we see that the narrative takes priority, and that is based on a materialistic worldview. Notice that respected evolutionists do not debate science with qualified biblical creation scientists.

Black-eyed Susan and Coneflower, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified at PhotoFunia)

It is my contention that materialism and atheism are incoherent, inconsistent, and unliveable. Beauty is not utilitarian. Love, compassion, wonder, hatred, and a host of other aspects of the spirit exist and atheists use them despite their worldviews.

With worldviews come presuppositions; people may deny it, but everyone has them. Despite their materialistic worldview where they claim there is no God, spirits, mind, consciousness, and all that, sometimes research into psychic phenomena is found.

What can the mind actually do? Do humans have abilities that have been hidden over time? Are they manifestations of the occult? What can be concluded from the evidence, or are conclusions (and research itself) suppressed because materialistic presuppositions are threatened? As you can see, questions raise more questions. Imagine if secular scientists removed their materialistic spectacles and honestly examined creation science and Genesis Flood geological evidence!

This is sure to raise some hackles. IAI.TV offers an article summary:
The philosophy of materialism has dominated theoretical physics and neuroscience for decades. In this article, theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that scientific gatekeeping of alternatives to materialism is the most dangerous type of pseudoscience. To make progress, he argues, we need to examine what we don’t understand in our current theories.

“Materialism is holding science back,” September 16, 2025
Yes. Challenges to a materialist view of, say, human consciousness, have always and only been phrased in terms of the shortcomings of current materialist theories. Better ones, we are assured, are in the pipeline… indefinitely. The underlying premise is never questioned.

To read this article from the Intelligent Design community, see "In Science, the Cost of Defending Materialism Is Rising."

Dinosaur Bones Give Up DNA

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Despite the railings of many atheists and other believers in Darwin's story, biblical creationists do indeed accept — and use — science. To put science as an ultimate authority, including over morality, is scientism. We do not accept that.

One of their tenets of faith is that "science is self-correcting." Great. Except that science is not an entity. Scientists make mistakes that are often corrected. Unfortunately, many people do not get the memo. Spinach as a powerhouse of iron, cracking the knuckles causes arthritis — these and more debunked ideas are still believed by some folks.

T-rex and landscape, Pixabay / GeorgeB2

Another worn adage is to "follow where the evidence leads." The story is that dinosaurs died out before birds evolved, but evidence shows that they existed at the same time. There's lies in them thar museums. When soft tissues were found in dinosaurs, evolutionists scoffed. Indeed, some sidewinders even today claim that soft tissues don't exist, it's a lie told by biblical creationists!

Not only has the evidence of dinosaur soft tissues been accumulating, there are other related problems for adherents of scientism. DNA has been found in dinosaur bones. Also, bone cells and proteins. Anti-creationists can fuss and make unscientific rescuing devices all they want, but they are not following where the evidence "leads" (again, as if it were an entity). It is not about evidence at all, but rather, about clinging to a deep time worldview. The truth is that dinosaurs could not have died out millions of Darwin years ago. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs). As she said in a popular TV show:

To discover more, finish reading the article at "DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone."

Human Senses Defy Evolution, Affirm Creation

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

People tend to think of having five senses, occasionally pondering the possibility of a sixth sense when they feel something will happen or unexplained things occur. For that matter, a sixth sense has been attributed to various critters showing awareness of danger.

Actually, animals can be sensitive to vibrations, smells, and other things in their basic senses. So are we. (This child suspects that some things attributed to the supernatural are often our forgotten or suppressed senses being active.) Some researchers think we have about thirty-three senses!

Baby Reaching For An Apple, Mary Cassatt (1891)

Believers in descent-with-modification seek function, such as survival advantage. The senses under investigation do not always provide a survival advantage. Indeed, what is called cross-domain associations occur; senses in different areas must have come into existence at once — and they are active in children. What is observed points to the work of the Master Engineer and defies the piecework inherent in evolution.

Liu and Lupyan’s work reveals that our experience of the world is not confined to the five-sense model (originally articulated by Aristotle), but rather is characterized by a rich, overlapping tapestry of sensory and conceptual domains. Their research suggests that humans may possess between 22 and 33 distinct senses, all blending seamlessly into a unified perceptual experience.

From an intelligent design perspective, these findings highlight the remarkable integration underlying human experience. They also raise significant questions for evolutionary explanations that rely on incremental adaptation and chance co-option. Instead, they point to a purposeful architecture, where human minds and bodies were designed to integrate extraordinary complexity into coherent unity.

If this has your spider-sense tingling, you can read the full article at "Our Multiple Senses Cooperate."

Evidence of Design — Checkmate, Atheists?

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:35:48 +0000

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are many articles, books, videos, and so forth that have incontrovertible evidence for intelligent design. When presented on various platforms, they are occasionally accompanied by antagonistic expressions like, "Checkmate, atheists!" However, evolutionists find rescuing devices to dodge evidences for creation and the unpalatable conclusions that accompany them.

Conversely, misotheists use dysteleological arguments: God would not make killer jellyfish, or he fouled up on the human eye and reproduction. Although creationists also have rescuing devices, those arguments against design are not based on science. They are opinions — and theology.

Chess pieces, Pixabay / moritz320

Folks on either side of the origins debate present what they think is a "smoking gun" or "knockout punch" that will force their opponents to abandon their beliefs and embrace the truth. Anyone who is capable of rational thought can see that evolution — and atheism itself — is irrational and cannot be logically supported. Right? That'll be the day!

Such evidence-based approaches have a basis in naturalism. Sure, there is scientific evidence supporting evolution, but that is not the be-all and end-all of persuasion. Biblical creationists may get caught up in letting atheists dictate the terms of discussions and forget that there is more involved than evidence alone. People are spiritual by nature, and our worldviews are loaded with presuppositions. For Christians, we presuppose that God is real, the Bible is true, and that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts the heart and draws someone to Christ.

Something interesting to know that there are overlapping presuppositions. The uniformity of nature (orderliness), for example.

It is important to remember that we belong to God, not the world. The Spirit who lives in us is greater than the one who is in the world (1 John 4:4). We should not be pyroclastic in our demeanors like so many atheists, but gracious (1 Peter 3:15). Biblical creationists are dismantling the worldviews of unbelievers, and that can be painful for them; people emotionally cling to their beliefs. We need to present the truth (being ready to walk away from those who are obstreperous time wasters), and leave the results to God.

Uranian Moons May Have Subsurface Oceans

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Back in 1986, Voyager 2 visited the mysterious planet Uranus. Probes send back a prairie-schooner-full of data and some of it is analyzed and reanalyzed decades later. It is more than just, "Oh, look. More moons." Rechecking data from V'ger provided interesting results.

Before going on, it is worth noting that Uranus defies the conventional cosmic evolution story. It is colder than Neptune, has an extreme axial tilt where it effectively rolls around the sun, rotates like Venus in a retrograde manner, has an offset magnetic field, and more.

Illustration of Uranus and its five largest moons, NASA / Johns Hopkins APL / Mike Yakovlev (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

To date, twenty-nine moons have been discovered. Several of those are odd like their ringed host (rings discovered in 1977). Two of them are strong candidates to have oceans under their surfaces. This was determined by stress fractures caused by the planet they orbit. If correct, they could join the ranks of other moons in the solar system that may have liquid or frozen water inside.

A team of researchers led by University of North Dakota planetary scientist Dr. Caleb Strom concluded that the two Uranian moons Ariel and Miranda . . . once had water oceans within their interiors. They obtained their conclusions . . . by studying cracks, or stress fractures, on the surfaces of the two moons and by using computer models to determine the internal conditions needed to produce those cracks.

These stress fractures are caused by gravitational tugs exerted on Ariel and Miranda by Uranus and, to a lesser extent, by the other Uranian moons. These tugs slowly deform these Uranian moons, making their shapes at times a little more like that of an American football than a sphere. These tugs can also warm the interiors of small moons like Ariel and Miranda. These tugs are stronger when the orbits of Ariel and Miranda have higher eccentricities, that is, when their orbits around Uranus are more stretched-out or elongated.

To read the full article and see also why these findings fit in nicely with biblical creation science presuppositions and defy secular presuppositions, blast off to "Subsurface Oceans on Two Uranian Moons?" You may also like to read "Pondering Many Moons."

Confidence in Claims of Scientists — and Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

There was a time when people thought that answers to many problems would be found by scientists, but over the years, there has been a growing distrust for scientists. This has increased after Dr. Anthony Fauci and vaccines for the Rona virus fell into disrepute in many areas.

There are moral standards for the secular science industry that the public expects to be upheld. These are especially evident in medical science. There are certain criteria that can be implemented to discern if scientists are providing reasons for us to have confidence in their pronouncements.

Chimp says, "She made a good point", made with Bing Image Creator

Creationists have long pointed out the fact that science can be divided into two areas, historical (forensic) and operational. Obviously there is some overlap as forensics use what exists in the present in their efforts to determine what happened in the past.

There are six criteria for medical science that can be used to some extent in some areas. When used on descent with modifications, we see that the science gets a high confidence score — for using circular reasoning, bad logic, and poor scientific practices. Secularists need to cowboy up and use science properly, admitting that it points to the work of the Master Engineer.

When a new scientific discovery is announced, how can you determine the level of confidence that the claim deserves? In a series of three articles, I want to consider this question.

Claims are based on evidence, and different kinds and quantities of evidence provide different levels of confidence. If the evidence is conflicting, the evidence that provides higher confidence must be prioritized. If the available evidence can provide only low confidence, any claims should be stated tentatively.

Because the field of medicine involves life-or-death outcomes, it is arguably the most important application of science — that is, from the perspective of potential benefit to society. As a result, we have established regulatory bodies (like the FDA) and demanded that medical guidelines be backed by strong evidence.

The rest of this article is found at "When Can I Trust What Scientists Say?" Next is "When Can I Trust Scientists About Evolution?," followed by "On Evolution, Here Is What We Can Believe with High Confidence."

Men and Women are Different by Design

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Culture is attempting to influence biological realities, but some things cannot be wished away. As of August 14, 2026, the WNBA cannot define what a woman is. Meanwhile, men who "identify" as women want to play in that women's league. Other people, including a Supreme Court justice, refuse to say what defines a woman.

My doctor's office has a form that wants to know what gender I was assigned at birth. If they kowtow to reality-denying culture, I wonder if my medical care is in jeopardy! The differences between men and women exist and are important.

Adam and Eve before the Temptation / George Frederick Watts

Interesting that this gender stuff was mostly unknown for thousands of years, but has been accelerating recently.

It is plain to see that men and women are wired differently. That is, we think and feel in different manners and have different internal chemistry. That remark I made about getting proper medical care because the doctor's office buys into the political and culture gender stuff? Denying the differences because of feelings can be disastrous. Each sex responds to medications differently. Also, our sex was assigned by the Master Designer and is written in about three trillion cells of the human body.

It is true that both men and women share traits of each other's sex and express them, those exceptions do not mean that gender can vary. Indeed, no amount of hormones, wishful thinking, mutilating surgeries or anything else can change reality. I don't care what the Gaystapo and their ilk claim. You savvy that, pilgrim? The differences are real, and we were designed to complement each other.

The news cycle is consistently filled with articles about gender, sex, male, and female, in addition to a whole new dictionary of terms like nonbinary, two-spirit, cis-gender, pansexual, and so on. Our culture is obsessed with the idea of so-called sexual or gender identity. Rather than embracing God’s purposeful and unique design of male and female, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worship the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). The “alphabet mafia” chooses to ignore God’s definitions and to redefine (or in many cases not define!) what it means to be male and female. They see the key to equality is for there to be NO differences between the sexes. In their view, we all just need to be the same.

To read the rest of this very useful article, see "Men and Women’s Different Biology Supports Their Different Roles — Purposeful Design: Part 1." Don't miss "...Purposeful Design: Part 2, here." Also worth checking out is "Gender, Biology, and God."

Fake Evolution and the Tibetan Snow Lotus

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Way, way up on the Tibetan Plateau is the Tibetan Snow Lotus. Of course, after China invaded Tibet in 1950, they have even influenced language; it is better known as Snow Lotus or even Chinese Snow Lotus. Or use the scientific name (Saussurea laniceps). There are different varieties of this flower.

People who can brave the rarefied air go up there and pick this endangered flower for various reasons. The most popular is that it is useful in Chinese folk medicine. While there is scientific evidence that it can treat rheumatoid arthritis, human tests seem nonexistent.

Icy Tibetan Snow Lotus (Saussurea gossypiphora), Wikimedia Commons / Prateek (CC BY-SA 2.5 IN)

Because people are picking these flowers, Darwin's disciples are claiming that since the lotus is now growing shorter, we see evolution in action. Not hardly! What we have is something that may be called natural selection (if you can call people picking flowers and driving them to extinction "natural"). There is loss of genetic material for the taller plants that was created to be in them in the first place.

The Tibetan Snow Lotus, Saussurea laniceps, is highly prized for its use in traditional Chinese and Tibetan medicine for the treatment of headaches, high blood pressure, and various other ailments. Every year at flowering time, Himalayan locals climb above altitudes of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) to scour the rocky mountain slopes for it, harvesting the whole plant.

. . .

Now because it’s the tallest plants that are harvested, being both easier to find and considered more potent, only the smaller plants are being left behind to produce seed. Therefore, only the smaller plants’ genes are making it through to the next generation. The result? Researchers have reported that the height of the snow lotus has nearly halved over the past century.

You can read all of this short article by climbing up to "Tibetan snow lotus — A prized flower suffers ‘tall poppy’ syndrome."

Fundamentally Flawed Lizard Brain Human Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

One of the problems in descent with modifications evolution is that it is pervasive, with outdated ideas still used. I occasionally see videos that make evolutionary assertions that have no basis in fact. A couple of these on psychology referred to the lizard (or reptile) brains of humans.

The idea of humans having a triune brain with a lizard at the base is fundamentally flawed in several ways. One of these is lack of evidence. Another problem is that since it fit the narrative so well, evolutionists seemed to just plug it in.

MacLean's Triune Brain concept, WikiComm / Lchunhori (CC BY-SA 2.5), modified at PhotoFunia

The three-part brain concept, underpinned by a lizard brain, was set forth by Paul D. MacLean. He was a respected neuroscientist. His status and authority may have been part of the reason the story was easily accepted.

Also, it was firmly rooted not only in the assumption of evolution, but also strongly based on Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings. Fraud, assumptions, wrong authority, and overall bad logic fooled psychology for decades. Again we see it is best to trust the truth about creation as seen in the written Word of God. After all, the fundamentally flawed evolutionary concept comes from a fundamentally flawed worldview.

One influential idea in evolutionary neuroscience held that, because of our animal ancestry, humans inherited the brains of “three animals: a primitive crocodile, a panicky mouse, and a pragmatic human being. … These three metaphorical animals are thought to occupy the inside of your head, fighting for control over your body…. On top of this ancestral brain, we are said to have evolved a second brain, full of emotions, shared with mammals like mice and horses.”

The human brain was, in fact, interpreted and taught by the triune brain model, also called the lizard brain theory, to be three brains: a lizard brain for survival, a limbic brain for emotions, and a newly evolved human brain for rationality. According to this model, the human brain consists of three evolutionary layers: a reptilian brain responsible for survival instincts, a limbic brain that governs emotions, and a recently evolved neocortex responsible for rational thought of modern man.

The rest of this interested article is located at "Humans Do Not Have an Evolved 'Lizard Brain'." Also worth seeing is "Darwinism and Destroying Brains."

Pancakes and Corvids at Canyonlands National Park

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

In southeastern Utah is a nice spread of 337,598 acres called Canyonlands National Park, hosting canyons (obviously), spires, and buttes. Conventional uniformitarian geology says that rivers carved the canyons of millions of Darwin years. Evidence is against Grand Canyon being carved by the Colorado River, and similar logic applies here.

Secularists evosplain that the pancake-like layers that are seen were made by a series of deserts over vast amounts of time. However, deserts today do not act like those supposedly did in the distant unobserved past.

Canyonlands National Park by Matthew Dillon at Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

There are thousands of canyons on this here planet Earth. Biblical creationists see a great deal of evidence not only against the conventional views, but in favor of the Genesis Flood in Grand Canyon and at Canyonlands. Were any of the other canyons made slowly? Mayhaps some, but most had to be done by a lot of water in a little bit of time, not a little bit of water over millions of years.

When you pull into one of the park’s parking lots, a raven may warn its faraway friends about you with its rattle-like, long-distance call. The various species of ravens and crows belong to one genus: Corvus. Scientists refer to these birds in the family Corvidae, along with other relatives including jays, magpies, rooks, and jackdaws, as corvids. All of today’s corvids likely descended from the seven pairs of this particular kind on board Noah’s Ark (Genesis 7:3).

. . .

These aren’t the kind of pancakes we can eat! Canyonlands National Park has outcrops of the Navajo Sandstone, a rock formation that contains multiple layers, each one like a colossal pancake. Many of these layers preserve cross-beds. This refers to tilted layering within a flat bed. What caused the sand to get deposited at angles instead of horizontally? Even more mysteriously, what led to each layer’s flat top and the next cross-bedded layer getting stacked atop the one below?

To read the entire article, click on "Canyonlands National Park: A Bird's-Eye View." Y'all may also like to read "Insultingly Bad Crow and Raven Evolution Report."